At 08:52 PM 2/14/97 -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Sorry for the delay in this thread.
>When I first started testing HTTP/1.0 clients, almost all of them understood
>Content-Encoding. Are you saying that they have digressed? Are you sure
>that the tests were not faulty (i.e., was the server output checked to
>be sure that it was actually sending the correct content-type and
>content-encoding headers)? Or do the failures only apply when "deflate"
>is used as the Content-Encoding? Note that most current clients will
>only accept "x-gzip" and "x-compress", if anything.
This is not entirely correct. The only reason why the clients that I have
tested look like they understand content encoding is that it always has
been followed by a "application/octet stream" content type which is handled
by dumping it to disk. If you have content type "text/html" which is the
situation in our tests then most clients pass it right through.
>Henrik suggested:
>>What if we said that:
>>
>>"HTTP/1.1 servers or proxies MUST not send any content-encodings other than
>>"gzip" and "compress" to a HTTP/1.0 client unless the client explicitly
>>accepts it using an "Accept-Encoding" header."
>
>No. Content-Encoding is a property of the resource (i.e., only the origin
>server is capable of adding or removing it on the server-side, and only
>the user agent is capable of removing it on the client-side). The protocol
>should not dictate the nature of a resource and under what conditions the
>server can send an otherwise valid HTTP entity. The protocol must remain
>independent of the payload.
But it does already - it is part (and have been for a long time) of the
content negotiation algorithm just like content-type and content-language.
There is nothing wrong in this.
The reason why this problem has occurred is that the wording in the spec
reflected HTTP/1.0 servers behavior which is to send a "content-encoding:
x-gzip" or whatever without the client asking for it. Instead I ask for it
to be updated so that it takes into account "deflate" which is already
mentioned in the spec.
>Transfer-Encoding, on the other hand, represents HTTP-level encodings.
>If we want to support HTTP-level compression, it must be done at that
>level.
No, as an origin server I want to compress the data once and for all,
compute my hash and other things that depend on the hash like signatures,
PICS labels etc. I can see special cases where compression at the transfer
level is convenient - for example allowing proxies to compress it on the
fly etc. but the first usage is not less important.
>However, I would rather see work being done on HTTP/2.x, wherein
>we could define a tokenized message format which is more efficient than
>just body compression and would result in no worse incompatibilities with
>existing software than adding body compression.
By using pipelining we have reached the upper limit for how fast we can get
the data through on a PPP link. I have a nice example of some xplots on a
PPP link showing this - it's available at
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Protocols/HTTP/Performance/PipeExamples.html
The only way to optimize it is to send less data. A quick example shows the
significance of compression: of the 180K that is on our microscape
homepage: 42K HTML and 125K GIF we save approx 30K or 1/6 by compressing
_ONLY_ the HTML. This is when using the zlib out-of-the-box. If we optimize
the compression using a HTML adjusted dictionary, I am sure that this can
get even better. Also, when using stylesheets instead of many of the GIFs
this becomes even more obvious.
Henrik
--
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, <frystyk@w3.org>
World Wide Web Consortium, MIT/LCS NE43-346
545 Technology Square, Cambridge MA 02139, USA